• 
• Japanese
• 
• IETC's Focal Area
• Waste Management
• Publications & Tools
• Meetings & Workshops
• Water and Sanitation
• Publications & Tools
• Meetings & Workshops
• Disaster Management
• Publications & Tools
• Meetings & Workshops
• Resources
• Publications & Tools
• About IETC
• Background and History
• Director
• Activity Reports
• Supporting Foundations
• Procurement
• Internship
• Contact Us

2.5 Topic j: Public education

Public attitudes in North America today have been largely shaped by the waste management practices of the past, when no distinction was made between toxic wastes and other trash. Solid waste management facilities are often assumed to present the same threats to human health and the environment as hazardous waste facilities, in part because many municipal landfills that used to receive hazardous wastes have appeared on the US "Superfund" list of abandoned hazardous waste sites.

Perhaps the most common feeling linking many public interest groups is the NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") view. A similar acronym which has emerged with regard to the siting of landfill and WTE facilities is the LULU (Locally Unwanted Land Use) view. These stances have evolved from public concerns about protecting the environment and local property values, fear of health risks, distrust of government institutions, and concerns about preserving the community. Developing a complete public education and involvement program can help overcome this view, in cases where that is appropriate.

One of the first steps in planning a public participation strategy is to identify the community groups that will want to take part in the process. These groups include people who feel they will be directly affected by the proposed systems, but can also encompass many sectors of the community including elected officials, civic groups, business interests, environmentalists, other government officials, and the media. Waste management agencies employ a range of techniques to gauge public attitudes, from informal interviews to sophisticated opinion polls.

Many people question the safety of new waste management facilities. While all waste management methods are associated with some level of risk, the public does not always understand or trust technical information about the effectiveness of environmental controls. In addition to concerns about air emissions and ground water, people often assume that waste management facilities will attract vermin, spread litter, and smell. Giving citizens input into setting standards and enforcing good operating practices can help alleviate these concerns.

Once concerns have been defined, public education materials and programs are often designed to address them. Although the waste management authority will have its own viewpoint, the public education program must be kept scrupulously objective in order to win public confidence. Public education programs typically have many different components, including written materials tailored for different audiences, different distribution mechanisms and channels of communication, and facility tours. Short brochures and fact sheets can present key points to wide audiences, while more technical studies are often distributed to members of an oversight committee. Newsletters are a good method of keeping interested citizens aware of new developments and summarizing report findings.

The specific content of public education materials depends on the nature of public concerns. In general, materials often need to address four themes: (a) why a new waste management system is needed; (b) the risks of the current and proposed systems, including the hazards, probability of exposure, and any uncertainties about data on risks; (c) system costs (including the costs of doing nothing) and how they will be paid; and (d) how to participate in the decision-making process.

Public involvement

Public involvement differs from public education in that it provides a forum for two-way communication between local officials and the public. Citizens are more likely to respond favorably to MSWM plans if they have participated in developing them. Public meetings provide an opportunity for waste management officials to discuss planning issues and to hear local concerns. When more complicated information is presented, a workshop may be needed to accompany the public meeting.

Citizens advisory groups often provide structured opportunities for local officials to learn about citizen preferences. These committees can be formed during the planning process for a facility and remain active throughout facility siting, permitting, and operation. A citizens committee can also take responsibility for identifying public concerns regarding the health and environmental impacts of proposed facilities and choosing management systems to address those concerns.

Communities sometimes measure public support for waste management plans via a referendum. If plans are approved, local government officials have a popular mandate to proceed. If the need for a new system is not recognized, however, officials can be left with the difficult choice of proceeding with plans anyway, or halting action until the public agrees that it is necessary.

Mediation through an independent third-party negotiator can help citizen groups, local officials, industry representatives, and other parties involved in the siting and implementation process find common ground. The use of a mediator might begin in the early stages of the planning process, when goals and criteria for the solid waste management system are being established. The need for mediation often becomes especially acute during the site selection process.

Even with the best plans, integrated systems are likely to have negative impacts on some members of the community. Mitigation, a process whereby community members and facility developers negotiate compensation for impacts, is one way to keep these problems from stopping the entire process. One helpful way to deal with NIMBY concerns, local officials are finding, is to compensate a community for hosting a MSW facility. This can be done through host community fees or one-time investments. Host fees are becoming common practice in many areas of North America. In some cases, host fees collected for refuse that is combusted or landfilled are deposited in a community fund. One-time investments can include funding recreational facilities, parks, recycling programs, and the education and operation of a local citizens' oversight committee. Facility owners sometimes offer free refuse collection for the host community.

Public participation during the permitting stage is often incorporated through public hearings, which can greatly affect the length of an approval process. If a constant, clear dialogue has been maintained between all interested parties throughout the planning and siting process, the potential for delays during permitting is often reduced. If the process has not gone smoothly, public pressure can block facility development at the permitting stage. Depending on the number and complexity of the permits required and the nature of public opposition, in the US it can take from two years to more than eight years for a facility to complete the permit phase and begin operation.

Table of Contents

• Brochure
• 
• 
• International Year of Biodiversity
• 
•